figures.

Recced this thread as it is another unskewing thread

Oh my...

Personally, I think individual polls are a poor indicator of exactly what's going on any given day, and in response to any particular news event. But it's a good indicator of overall trends when all the polls are taken as a whole. It's very easy to nitpick any individual pollster or their methods, but it's difficult to argue-away obvious trends.

This poll is a piece of a puzzle. Not the entire puzzle, just a piece. When put together with other polls, we'll be able to come up with a clearer picture.

are you saying that Bernie is nominated for Sexiest Man Of The Year?

with a smallish sample size that left out all new voters, not yet registered voters, voters who didn't attend one of the last 2 caucuses, and included mostly older voters.

It's difficult for me to imagine that Monmouth would be so respected if they were as biased or incompetent as you're suggesting.

saying that this may not be good either. I never trust those polls. They are often designed to get the answer that one wants.

What was shocking to me was the number of Sanders supporters who saw Hillary as their second choice instead of O'Malley. There isn't this "anybody but Hillary" sentiment in the real world that you find on du. Thanks for sharing. Lots of great information.

"Adults in the room"? Sheesh...

I think politically it is a completely accurate statement. Look at the numbers. It clearly shows who the "political adults" are supporting overwhelmingly. With the weighting they used, I would make the case it is great for her no matter how it is broken down.

and tell you he did it.

He may even post a

that even 100 s is understating the hilarity.

"Final sample is weighted for age and gender based on state registration list information on the pool of voters who
participate in primary elections."

Page 4:
http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/c83c0429-6c12-47a7-ac86-9bd1beab9bfb.pdf

The Iowa Democratic voting population is small, so a sample of 400 is not small relative to the population being polled.

Since most people, as you've implied, support him. Why would it matter what a flawed poll indicates?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

samples are so small, but they are. Kind of funny however to see the pundits argue on the meaning of a 1% difference in a poll whose MOE is 5 or 6 % (in the GOP primary, of course).

The two other conditions are also pretty much generic these days. They may be wrong, but they are there whether the poll shows HRC or Sanders ahead.

Which is more interesting is the age difference. However, this goes to a question I cannot find anybody able to answer. Who are the people who answer polls these days? It is actually even more problematic in the GOP primary. but what is the validity of polls where only 1 out 10 people accept to answer? How much does that skew the results (one way of the other)?

So, I would not spend too much time on polls, by which I mean whoever they favor. I see a lot of people argue that polls are wrong when they do not go their way. They should also argue that when they go their way.

If so, what were the results? If not, why not?

You'd have to ask them why they haven't polled in Iowa before now.

The nearest comparison is the Loras College poll which which got similar numbers just before the hearing, and which also screens out younger and new voters who have not yet registered, including only people who voted in 2012 and 2014.